Mrs Poonam Kaphai v. Sh Pradeep Malhotra & Ors

ORDER %

02.08.2013 The present appeal is directed against an order dated 7'" October,2013 madeby learnedSingleJudgepermittingthe extension ofalease in favour ofthe Embassyof Saudi Arabiafor aperiodof thirtymonthswitheffectfrom l" October,2012. The plaintiffinthe pendingsuit CS(OS) 2565/2010claimsashare in the suitprope^ which is the basement,ground and first floor of 2, PaschimiMarg, Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. VasantMaxg,NewDelhi. The suitis premiseduponthe amendment made to Section6of the Hindu SuccessionAct. The plaintiff contends that she is entitledto ashare equal to that any of the co-parcenersin the suit property. The learned Single Judge after consideringthe submissionsofthepartiesfeltthattheplaintiffdidnot urge any cogentreasonsfor refusingto extendthe lease,andthatthe order was necessary to preserve the property. It had also been concurrently apprisedof the fact that no other offer to lease the premisesduringthependencyofthesuithadbeenmade. It is contended by Mr. Gumani, learned counsel for the appellantthat the impugnedorderresultsin extraordinaryprejudice inasmuchas the proceedingsin the suitareamere formalityand ye^ likely to be decreed at any time. It was contended that if the impugnedorderis allowedto stand,itwouldresultin graveprejudice to the plaintiffsrights inasmuchas in the event of the preliminary decreebeingdrawnup duringthe subsistenceoftenancy,the plaintiff wouldbe unableto seekafinal decree for partitionand for separate physicalpossessionofher share ofthe suit property. It was further contendedthat evenifthe propertywere to be put to auction,due'to the subsistenceof the lease, the property would be incapable of fetching as much as it would have if vacant propertywere handpd over to the auctionpurchaser. This Courthas consideredthe submissions. The suitwas filed in 2010. The lease originallygrantedin favour of the Embassyof SaudiArabiahas beenin existenceofthe lastten years. All thatthe Courthas done is to extendthe periodfor fiirtherthirtymonthswith effectfrom V' October,2012. The periodofleasewouldthus end on March, 2015. The Court is also consciousof the fact that the respondent/defendanthas preferredan applicationunder Order VII Rule 11 CPC andthe issueshavenotyetbeenframed. Havingregardto theseoverallconspectusofcircumstances,the Court is satisfied that the unpugned order would not cause any irreparableprejudiceofthenaturebeingadvocatedbythe counsel. The appealis devoidofmeritandis,therefore,dismissed. • S.RAVINDRABHAT, J sn :;iRi, J AUGUST 02,2013

+ $-9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO(OS)351/2013 MRS POONAMiCAPHAI Appellant, j Through: Mr. AshokGumani,Adv. versus SHPRADEEPMALHOTRA&ORS Respondents Through: Mr. SanjayJdn,Sr. Adv. with Ms. VandanaSehgal,Mr. Rohan Thawani,Mr. HardeepSinghAnand, Ms. KritiSinghGhlourt,Ms. Ashama SehgalandMs. RuchiJain,Advs. j HO^^EMR.JUSTICES.RAVINDRABHAT HON'BLEMR.JUSTICENAJMIWAZIRI